Keep always in our mind the end of all things and the day of judgment.

Inspire us for a holy life here, and bring us to the joy of the resurrection,

through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen.

—Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 52

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Assigned Readings:

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (Thursday)

Genesis 38:1-26 (Friday)

Psalm 17:1-9 (Both Days)

Acts 22:22-23:11 (Thursday)

Acts 24:10-23 (Friday)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let my vindication come forth from your presence,

let your eyes be fixed on justice.

–Psalm 17:2, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Genesis 38 serves several functions. One is to mark the passage of time between Genesis 37 and 39. Another is to make people squirm. What should one make of a story in which Tamar, the heroine, the wronged woman denied what was due her according to levirate marriage (described in Deuteronomy 25), had to resort to posing as a pagan temple prostitute to seduce her father-in-law to get the child(ren) she deserved, according to social customs meant to protect childless widows? Due to problems with her first husband’s brothers the duty fell to Judah, her father-in-law.

I remember that, in 1996, at Asbury United Methodist Church, north of Baxley in Appling County, Georgia, an adult Sunday School class read the Book of Genesis at the rate of a chapter per week. One Sunday that summer the time came to ponder Chapter 38. The leader of the class skipped to Genesis 39, for he found the contents to be too hot a potato, so to speak.

The story of Judah and Tamar continues to make many readers of the Hebrew Bible uncomfortable. Tamar remains a troublemaker of sorts, long after her death. Perhaps modern readers who struggle with the tale should think less about our comfort levels and more about the lengths to which certain people need to go to secure basic needs.

St. Paul the Apostle got into legal trouble (again) in Acts 21. The trumped-up charge boiled down to him being a troublemaker, a disturber of the peace. As Tertullus, the attorney for chief priest Ananias and Temple elders argued before Felix, the governor:

We found this man to be a pest, a fomenter of discord among the Jews all over the world, a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He made an attempt to profane the temple and we arrested him.

–Acts 24:5-6, The Revised English Bible (1989)

Were not those who plotted and attempted to kill St. Paul the real troublemakers? He planned or committed no violence toward those with whom he disagreed. The Apostle knew how to employ strong language, but he avoided resorting to violence after his conversion.

How we deal with alleged troublemakers reveals much about our character. What, then, does this standard reveal about your character, O reader?

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JUNE 3, 2016 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF WILL CAMPBELL, AGENT OF RECONCILIATION

THE FEAST OF SAINTS LIPHARDUS OF ORLEANS AND URBICIUS OF MEUNG, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOTS

THE FEAST OF THE MARTYRS OF UGANDA

THE FEAST OF SAINT MORAND OF CLUNY, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK AND MISSIONARY

The Book of Amos, after all of its predictions of destruction, takes a sudden turn at the end and concludes with a promise that God will restore the Hebrew nation. Hope of restoration was on the minds of many whom Jesus encountered in Roman-occupied Judea. Many others, however, benefited from that occupation, for they had made their peace with Roman authorities. Some of these elites plotted to kill Jesus then St. Paul the Apostle, who were indeed threats to their power, although not in ways many people thought and in ways many people did not expect. Hostility was often inconsistent in its standards:

For John the Baptist came, neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, “He is possessed.” The Son of Man came, eating and drinking, and you say, “Look at him! A glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!”

–Luke 7:33-34, The Revised English Bible (1989)

As a sign I have reads,

FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE CRITICISM.

The term “Kingdom of God” has more than one meaning in the Bible. It refers to the afterlife in some passages yet to the reign of God on earth in others, for example. The latter definition interests me more than does the former. One function of the latter definition is to criticize human institutions and social structures as falling short of divine standards, which is the definition of sin. Some people hear criticism and respond by trying to change them for the better. Others ignore the criticism. A third group reacts violently in defense of themselves and their beloved institutions and social structures.

Placing that Psalm in the lectionary for these two days seems ironic, especially when considering the other two pericopes.

The titular character of the Book of Job suffered, but not because of any sin he committed. Compounding his plight was the fact that he had to endure alleged friends, who blamed him for his plight. They insisted that, since God does not punish the innocent, Job must have sinned, thus prompting his extreme suffering. They advised him to repent of his sins, therefore. Actually, the text tells us, God permitted the suffering as a test of loyalty. Job protested his innocence and lamented his fate. Anyone who speaks of the “patience of Job,” as if he had any, ought to pay better attention to the story.

Meanwhile, in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul the Apostle was traveling to Jerusalem. He hoped to arrive in time for the first day of Pentecost. At Caesarea the Apostle learned that his journey would take him to a bad fate. He accepted the prophecy calmly, saying,

…I am ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

–Acts 21:13c, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

He went on to die for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ at Rome “off-camera,” so to speak, after the end of the Acts of the Apostles.

The alleged friends of Job thought that suffering resulted necessarily from sins. Yet St. Paul the Apostle suffered for the sake for the sake of righteousness.

Nevertheless, the assumption that we suffer solely or primarily because of our wrongdoing persists. Also commonplace is a related assumption which says that, if we live righteously, we will prosper and be safe and well. This is the heresy of Prosperity Theology.

Tell that heresy to Jesus and to the Christian martyrs, if you dare,

I say. I conclude that false ideas live on because too many people pay little or no attention to the evidence around them. Perhaps these individuals are merely incurious. (Many people are not very inquisitive, intellectually or otherwise.) Or maybe they are distracted among the other details of life. Regardless of the reason(s), they need to pay better attention and respond to the situation that is, not the situation they imagine exists.

To claim that God never punishes the innocent or permits them to suffer is to make a pious comment–one which is false. What is the functional difference between permitting innocent people to suffer and punishing them? I recognize none. One is passive and the other is active, but the results are the same. The problem of suffering is complicated for we monotheists, for we lack the luxury of blaming an evil deity for misfortune while letting a good deity off the hook. Yes, how we live on this plane of reality affects the afterlife, but the rain still falls on the just and on the unjust in this life. Wicked people still prosper and righteous people still suffer on this side of Heaven. All of this can be difficult to reconcile with the idea of a loving and just God, hence bad theology in defense of God. I prefer an honest question to a false certainty, however.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

MARCH 24, 2015 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF THOMAS ATTWOOD, “FATHER OF MODERN CHURCH MUSIC”

THE FEAST OF SAINT DIDACUS JOSEPH OF CADIZ, CAPUCHIN FRIAR

THE FEAST OF OSCAR ROMERO, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN SALVADOR; AND THE MARTYRS OF EL SALVADOR

Blessed Lord, who caused all holy scriptures to be written for our learning:

Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them,

that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life,

which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ;

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

–The Book of Common Prayer (1979), page 236

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Assigned Readings:

1 Samuel 8:1-22 (July 24)

1 Samuel 9:1-27 (July 25)

1 Samuel 10:1-27 (July 26)

Psalm 15 (Morning–July 24)

Psalm 36 (Morning–July 25)

Psalm 130 (Morning–July 26)

Psalms 48 and 4 (Evening–July 24)

Psalms 80 and 27 (Evening–July 25)

Psalms 32 and 139 (Evening–July 26)

Acts 21:15-36 (July 24)

Acts 21:37-22:16 (July 25)

Acts 22:17-29 (July 26)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Central to the narrative of 1 Samuel 8-10 is the idea that Israelites were properly different from other nations. Their neighbors had human kings yet the Israelites had God as monarch; “judges,” or chieftains, provided human governance. So the demand for a human king constituted a rejection of God. The people got what they requested, although the beginning of Saul’s reign was promising. In the long term, however, monarchy turned out as Samuel predicted it would.

In the Acts of the Apostles we read of the other, dark side of not being like other nations: It can become a matter of hubris, that which goeth before the fall. Paul worked among Gentiles, to whom he did not apply the Law of Moses. Yet, contrary to rumor, he did not tell Jews to disobey that code, in particular relative to circumcision. But objective reality did not prevent him from getting into trouble.

I propose that an element crucial to understanding the theme of being different is considering that the Jews were a minority population, heirs of a monotheistic tradition in a sea of polytheism. How a member of a minority identifies oneself flows from that minority status. So a certain element of negative identity (“I am not a/an _______.”) is inevitable. But positive identity (“I am a/an ________.”) is preferable.

I, as a nonconformist, often by who the fact of who I am and frequently by choice, understand both forms of identity. I am usually clueless regarding many popular culture-related topics of conversations, for

I have other interests, and

I choose not not to consume most popular media. The “join the bandwagon” advertising approach has less of an effect on me than on many other people. I tend to turn away unless I am already interested.

My favorite Fifties music comes from the 1750s and the 1850s, from the European classical tradition, unless one speaks of certain jazz of the 1950s. I am an unapologetic musical snob; somebody has to be. And, if many people go out of the way to be like others and to subsume their identities into the collective, somebody has to go out of his or her way to stand out.

But none of that justifies spreading rumors, threatening innocent people with violence, and rejecting God. None of that makes right writing off most of the human race and contenting oneself with a “God-and-me” relationship.

Speaking of positive identity, each of us, regardless of labels, background, and circumstances, can claim one status with honesty:

I am a bearer of the image of God.

May we think of each other and ourselves accordingly. As we think so we act and are.